Reviews written by registered user
|85 reviews in total|
I was lucky enough to see this film on the big screen during the brief
period that it played locally. I didn't know any more about it than the
basic subject, and I'm glad about that, because the film got some
strangely negative reviews in the U.S. Some critics seemed to complain
that it wasn't a Jason-Bourne-style thriller. Instead, it's a careful
portrait of one man, and shows how both he and his village were changed
by political events in their country.
I was surprised to find out the movie was originally released in Germany in 2015, because it included so many events that are happening in 2017 America: left-vs-right street violence, religious intolerance, disagreements about which party represents workers, and government officials who think torture is the best way to get the truth.
The photography is beautiful and the storytelling clear but unusual. For example, an explosion is shown from a far-off POV, as a small part of a beautiful landscape shot, instead of up close to the blast. The production design is thoroughly convincing (though I may not be a perfect judge of the authenticity of period films set in Germany), and the settings are lifelike. When a character swims in a lake, it reminds you of just what that feels like. The violence works that way, too. Though it's not gruesomely detailed and exposed in a Tarantino kind of way, you'll probably feel it more.
The acting is excellent overall. The leading actor comes across as more babyfaced and less worldly than the real Georg Elser, just judging by their respective looks, but he creates a memorable character that is never a stereotype, yet is not merely a movie eccentric. Though the brutality of the Nazis' actions is never toned down, there are still moments when some of them display a believably human sense of doubt. A minor character has his own complete arc, from downtrodden village man to local Nazi leader to someone unsure if the party has gone too far. I completely disagree with one reviewer who thought the movie was too sentimental. It doesn't lionize even its main protagonist, and shows the problematic aspects of his violent political act.
Afterward, I read about the real Georg Elser, and I was disappointed at a few of the fictional changes. I was sorry they cut out the character of Georg's sister Maria, who seems to have been important in real life, and since everything is seen through Georg's eyes, and he has limited knowledge, and we don't hear about some of the other people the Nazis persecuted and even murdered after the bombing. But you can read about this. I never would have known the story was worth investigating further if I hadn't seen this compelling film.
From the rather glorious poster, and the title, I was expecting a more
thrilling gangster story, in the mold of "The Penalty" and other Chaney
crime flicks. This film was a disappointment. After a promising
opening, in which Chaney tosses menacing looks around a colorful
Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, the action moves to a fictional
rural town outside of the city, where a dull romance develops--the kind
where the woman exhorts the man to read the Bible. IMO, too much of the
plot in the middle section is told, rather than shown. For example,
what kindnesses did the heroine show to the Chaney character? We join
them after the relationship is developed, instead of watching it
happen, and their exchanges are pretty boring. There were a couple of
kids in the audience at the theater where I saw it, and I worried they
would be turned off of silent movies forever.
The story does pick up speed in the last section. The earthquake sequence is fun, except that the settings look so little like the real San Francisco, especially the exterior shots of Chinatown. Chaney's directors did sometimes film on location, but the only sequence in this movie that looked to me like it could possibly have been in the actual city was at the very end...but I'm not sure it wasn't done in Monterey or Santa Monica or elsewhere. Maybe someone else recognizes the distinctive wooden fence in the shot.
It was nice to see Chaney without makeup, but I didn't find his imitation of crippled limbs as convincing here as in other films: the movement seemed inconsistent, and I didn't see how he could support himself on crutches if his limbs were so useless without them. (Maybe I'm wrong; I wish the comments page was back so I could ask others about this.) It was easier for me to judge his physical work in "The Penalty" because I have a close relative who's a real amputee (Chaney was excellent there). Also, I thought he overacted a bit in the more sentimental sequences. As Chaney said himself, he often needed a director who would reign him in.
Bonus points: "Queen Ann" looks like an Edward Gory (IMDB will not allow me to spell it correctly; I've tried to change it three times) character. Lon Chaney is shown playing with a kitten. There doesn't seem to be any obvious racism (other than the total sidelining of Asian characters). A few of the Chinatown roles looked like they were even portrayed by real Asians, albeit not necessarily Chinese people.
I would recommend this for Chaney fans, or people who want to see whatever portrayals they can find of the 1906 earthquake. People who aren't used to silent movies or melodrama probably wouldn't enjoy it that much. I won't give away the ending, but I will say that its implausibility was almost insulting, though the piano accompanist at the screening I attended did a lot to heighten the emotion, and make it almost work.
Assuming this is the same series as the one on Netflix titled, "14: Diaries of the Great War," which it seems to be, judging from the reviews, this is a fantastic series about WWI, told through the actual words of people who lived through it, with some additional background info for context. Sometimes the episodes can be hard to watch, as the suffering is not skimmed over (thought it's not exploited for gory effect, either). The design is a bit flashy, but that's probably good for educational purposes, as kids today are used to fast-moving imagery. The production design and acting are top-notch (each character speaks in his or her own language, with voiceovers and subtitles), and the stories at least touch on I think every nationality that was involved in WWI; they don't just focus on Germany, France and England. They also give attention to homefront activities; basically they try to cover every aspect of the war, not just the battles, but the way war touches a variety of lives--people of different occupations, ages and classes--in unexpected ways.
If you like silent slapstick, this is a fun short. It involves lots of ridiculous chases and an extended drag sequence that is rather astonishing. Some trick photography adds to the silliness. There are moments that get repetitive, but overall I found it very enjoyable. The "Hairbreadth Harry" film series was based on a famous newspaper comic strip of the same name. The whole thing is a spoof, so the characters are cartoony, and the producers went to some effort to cast actors who resemble the comic-strip characters (Earl McCarthy, who died tragically young, is an especially good Harry). Fun fact: the comic strip started as a spoof of stage melodrama; by the time the film versions came out, there was a well- established tradition of movie melodrama to make fun of.
I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed this little movie. I had read two or three film-scholar essays that described it, and they didn't mention that it's actually still funny. I laughed out loud in more than one place. It probably helped that it doesn't have the nasty anti-suffragist caricatures that a number of shorts from the period have. But I think the main reason the film works is not because of the subject matter, but because it's well-made. The actors are good (they can explain things through pantomime while still remaining somewhat naturalistic), the plot is well-constructed, with each character given a motivation for their actions, and the camera-work is lovely. Much of the action takes place on well-framed shots of London streets, and there's a nice little bit at the end in which you see characters in the deep background through a window, which added an interesting layer. At the same time, the story does capture some of the topical details of the suffrage movement, so it sheds some light on beliefs of the time, while maintaining a light tone.
I saw this at a South Asian film festival, and it was one of my favorite movies of the festival that year. It's hard to explain why, since this is a documentary about the extreme unfair treatment of Indian girls, but I think the issue is important to understand, and the film is well-made. The information is presented clearly, and although some of the anecdotes and statistics are grim and shocking, they don't feel sensationalized. One of the most surprising things to me was that the story does not focus only on rural, remote parts of India. The film presents very compelling evidence that attitudes toward girls result in harsh injustices among the Indian diaspora in modern Canada and California. The topic is extremely difficult, but the documentary handles the issues with care, and makes sure that all the stories are personalized and made human. Even though the film is disturbing, it somehow manages to convey hope at the end. The women who spoke to the filmmaker are inspiring. (And at the screening I saw, which included a discussion panel, people came up to the microphone afterward and made--in some cases shouted--very moving, emotional statements.) I would recommend this documentary for any adult who is interested in civil rights and humanitarian issues.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is a well-crafted docudrama, and the performances are mostly
excellent, especially Emraan Hashmi as Ayan. I've never been to
Pakistan, so I don't know how accurately the hospital setting was
portrayed, but it certainly looked and sounded convincing. The
filmmaker added a meta framing device, showing a team of documentarians
trying to figure out how to tell this story without coming up against
legal trouble. Although the meta thing is often done, in my opinion,
this information added an extra dimension to the story that was
valuable. I had no idea it could be so difficult to take on a
multinational corporation, despite solid evidence that proves what is
going on. It also showed how many people are necessary to bring out a
story like this. It took a very dedicated whistleblower, medical
personnel, NGO workers, journalists from more than one country,
producers, lawyers... It's shocking how much power these big
corporations have, to stop even the truth.
Ayan valiantly--and unusually--risked his own family and livelihood to change what was happening. In this he was strongly aided by his parents and wife--if they had not agreed to support him, and suffer their own privations as a result of his attempts to seek justice, he could not have done it. (SPOILER AHEAD) And yet, despite the efforts of all these courageous people, the wrongdoing continues. The real-life couple the characters of Ayan and Zainab are based on (I believe their real names are different) appeared at the film festival screening I attended, and they are still struggling to get the word out. The film has not yet been shown in Pakistan. (Gratuitous observation: the real-life wife is just as pretty as Geetanjali!)
An interesting side note for documentary fans: Maryam d'Abo, who played Maggi (the blond NGO worker), wrote and produced a very interesting documentary on Bond Girls that is featured on some James Bond DVDs.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This early film is marred by uneven acting, and the storytelling is on the clunky side, but it does show that Gance was interested in epic themes even early on. The action takes place on two continents, and the plot concerns life-and-death questions of scientific ethics, which are still issues today. The story focuses on a scientist who invents a deadly gasshould it be used, even in wartime? Does he owe it to his country to donate his work? Complicating the issue are rivals who scheme to destroy the scientist and his inventions, and greedy family members who will stop at nothing to get his money. The villains' methods are typical of exaggerated melodramas of the period (innocents are elaborately menaced), but shot with some panache. The denouement is action-packed. POSSIBLE LIGHT SPOILER: Bizarrely, the day I saw this film was the same day a factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France, was attacked by a disgruntled worker, in a manner that partly paralleled the events on screen.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I love 1930's movies, and I like many of the actors in this cast, but
this film just isn't worth the time it takes to watch it, in my
opinion. I'm a little annoyed with myself that I didn't just turn it
off. Other reviewers described most of the objections I had to the
storyline, such as the poor treatment of secretaries and fiancées; they
really interfered with my enjoyment. The film seems to be trying to
justify the typical exploitation of workers practiced by many big movie
studios (I'm not sure about Warner Bros' record with that, but it seems
like the type of thing MGM would endorse). The idea of "The Office" is
glorified in a way that's ridiculous. And since the film was made in
the Depression, I couldn't help but wonder about the studio's purpose
behind all this "if you don't work all night you're a parasite" stuff.
(Possible spoiler ahead) And the characters all turn on one person in
the last scene, when she's really the one who was wronged.
The film does have a few good moments, and some nice outfits and Art Deco sets, but it mostly seems to be a waste of good performers, like Claire Dodd. (I thought David Manners' performance was weak, however--just smooth talk and popping eyes.) It was nice that some respect was given to the idea of a serious woman editor, but the actual scenes showing Kay Francis working didn't convince me that she was actually that good at her job. She keeps people waiting while playing around with her husband in the office, approves some perfectly mediocre sketches, demands endless overtime of her workers, and is unable to write out her own letters if a secretary has to leave.
There just isn't enough plot to get the thing going, so the character played by David Manners has to treat someone badly just to provide some juice, and the audience is supposed to approve of this pointless behavior. Kay Francis manages to inject some believable emotion into her scenes, but her motivations are confused--(possible spoiler) it's hard to believe she could be very serious about the David Manners character, when so much of the film is given over to her relationship with her husband.
If you want to see a much snappier film about a 1930's office, I recommend "Counsellor at Law," with John Barrymore (1933). It has some of the same plot themes as this one, but does them all much better.
"The Red Kimona" is a film created to explore a social evil; it's one
of a series of pictures made for that purpose in the early days of
cinema. (See the work of director Lois Weber for additional examples.)
It's not a movie for everybody--viewers looking for pure entertainment
will prefer the slapstick comedies or adventure stories of the silent
era--but for those interested in social history, and able to take the
picture on its own old-fashioned terms, it's a very watchable if
melodramatic film, with excellent production values and a fine cast.
(In fact, I didn't mean to watch the whole thing in one sitting, but
had trouble turning it off.)
I loved Priscilla Bonner in the main role (she's best known today for a supporting part in Clara Bow's "It," but also does one of the most heartfelt close-ups I've ever seen on film in Harry Langdon's "The Strong Man"). Her character changes convincingly as the story goes through several years--at one point Bonner seems to age before the audience's eyes as her character faces a tough choice. The camera-work and lighting are very striking, and certainly work to help Bonner's performance. A few sequences make good use of on-the-spot locations, like the Giant Dipper roller coaster at (I believe) the Venice, CA amusement pier, and the downtown streets of Los Angeles. The supporting players all look interesting and do well. I agreed with another reviewer that the costumes were a little confusing, since they appear to be from the early 1920's although the film is set in 1917. They don't all quite look like the fashions of 1925, when the film was released, but they don't seem totally pre-war either. (The title refers to a dressing gown the heroine wears.) But period costume authenticity was something that wouldn't really be established until later in film history.
Modern viewers may have difficulty with some details of the plot, as I did. Because of the censorship laws of the time, the filmmakers presumably weren't allowed to mention the word "prostitution," so it took me a little while to figure out exactly what was going on. But it eventually became clear.
The Kino DVD release has a pleasant, low-key piano soundtrack by Robert Israel that I really enjoyed.
|Page 1 of 9:||        |